The Oklahoma House of Representatives Education Committee has approved House Bill 2211, which is expected to pass the full House, and then to go to the Senate. See here.
Edmond Sun, March 7, 2008
If a student’s religious beliefs were in conflict with scientific theory, and the student chose to express those beliefs rather than explain the theory in response to an exam question, the student’s incorrect response would be deemed satisfactory, according to this bill.
The school would be required to reward the student with a good grade, or be considered in violation of the law. Even simple, factual information such as the age of the earth (4.65 billion years) would be subject to the student’s belief, and if the student answered 6,000 years based on his or her religious belief, the school would have to credit it as correct.
This will essentially destroy Oklahoma science instruction. No student will have to study for the course, just answer in terms of the bible. I’d guess that this was a ploy to assure the authors get re-elected, but then it will be overturned.
I guess it will make easy to pass a subject. Hey… the current definition of diferential equations is against my belief, I resolve them according to my religious belief.
I would have be a semester less in college with this idea.
I think a clever science teacher would be able to word the questions in a way that gets around this. Instead of “How old is the Earth?” which allows a student to express his belief, there’s “How old do most of the world’s scientists believe the Earth to be?” 6000 years can be proven an incorrect answer to the second question.
I think a clever science teacher would be able to word the questions in a way that gets around this. Instead of “How old is the Earth?” which allows a student to express his belief, there’s “How old do most of the world’s scientists believe the Earth to be?” 6000 years can be proven an incorrect answer to the second question.
That is an excellent point, Helen, and it probably represents one of the concerns of the bill. The latter question is the more precise/less doctrinaire position.
The law, as is typical, is couched in somewhat obscure legalese. While it is possible that it might be construed as feared by the author of the op-ed that was linked in the OP, grading religious answers correctly where they diverge radically from the content of the course does not appear to be the intent of the law.
In other words, the fears of the op-ed writer appear to occur as a consequence of the broad wording of the legislation, not its particular intent.
It would be more appropriate to criticize the law based on its harmful ambiguity rather than pillory the legislature based on an intent that probably doesn’t exist.
So when do medical students get a free pass when the answer to every question is, “pray for the one who is ailing, call the Elders to anoint them with oil, or cast out the evil spirit.”
The reason we have tests in school is to determine if students have achieved knowledge of the scientifically accepted standard. Being sensitive to religious views in this manner is a dangerous practice. I’m sure some religious folks would love it if their faith healers could be awarded medical degrees.
So when do medical students get a free pass when the answer to every question is, “pray for the one who is ailing, call the Elders to anoint them with oil, or cast out the evil spirit.”
The reason we have tests in school is to determine if students have achieved knowledge of the scientifically accepted standard. Being sensitive to religious views in this manner is a dangerous practice. I’m sure some religious folks would love it if their faith healers could be awarded medical degrees.
LMAO, ROFLR you are right, unless this bill is overturned, it won’t be surprising if they make that their next step.
This won’t stand up to judicial review. Unfortunately it will take years to overturn. From a legal point of view, it’s a clever attempt to get around the Establishment Clause since they are not advocating any religion over another. Nevertheless, the clear intent of the statute is to establish religion so it is impermissible.
This statute is unprecedented, the legislature is actually telling the school the correct answer to a specific question in a specific class. Can you imagine the legislature mandating that 5 is an acceptable answer to 2+2? Even with a controversial topic like sex-ed, I’m not aware of a legislature anywhere attempting to micromanage the answers to questions.
